Plans to ban smoking in doorways

[Della]

There are plans to extend the smoking ban to the entrances to public buildings.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8490490.stm

Quote:there will be a review of smoking legislation, which could see public bans extended to places such as the entrances of buildings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8493347.stm

I am very much against smoking. It is unhealthy including passive smoking harming others and it stinks. However, I have always been opposed to the smoking ban as it removes people from office smoking rooms and pubs where I could choose to avoid them and puts smokers in doorways where they more difficult to avoid. I wanted the 'smoking carriages' amendment where every building had to provide a sealed smoking room to get through parliament but it did not.

When the smoking ban first came in, my kids were younger and it was a real problem for the youngest seeing crowds of adult stood outside smoking. We stopped going to Festival Place and took up midnight shopping around that time. I have barely shopped in the Malls since.

Once again I feel the proposed legislation is focusing on removing smokers from the entrances to buildings instead of thinking about where to move them to. Very short-sighted in my opinion. Proper provision of attractive shelters in convenient locations away from doorways so non-smokers can avoid them would probably work better.

[Chester]

It's not smokers that a hazard but the smoke. If smoking in a doorway makes the smoke enter the building then it's just as prohibited as if the smoker were inside the door.

It's not possible to open windows in some offices in work because smokers congregate outside.

Why should provision be made for smokers? There are far more deserving people around.

[Xtro]

Smoking is a legal drug addiction, but I fully support the smoking ban. The proposals seem reasonable to me. I don't see why pubs should be exempt. Prior to the ban, I have worked in offices with smoking rooms and they didn't really work - the smell of smoke permeated the entire floor as the door to the smoking room was constantly being opened and closed (or left open). Sealed smoking rooms can work if sensibly positioned within an office, but they are expensive to install and maintain and use a lot of energy (thereby adding to CO2 emissions). Why should employers be expected to spend money supporting their employees' drug addiction (albeit a legal one)? I don't think anyone would think it OK to provide a drinking room for alcohol (also legal) at work.

My understanding is that the main driver behind the smoking ban was a health and safety issue for employees in their workplace, rather than the general public. The ban in pubs is to protect bar staff rather than the customers. It was studies which showed the damage that could be caused by passive smoking that led to the demise of smoking in the workplace. An employer has a duty of care not to expose their employees to harmful chemicals and substances - a non smoker could sue if they were exposed to second hand smoke in the workplace and developed a smoking related disease such as lung cancer. Just think of all the miners that developed lung problems from inhaling coal dust and others that suffered terribly from asbestos and all the compensation payments that eventually ensued.

[Della]

(04-02-2010 09:12 AM)Chester Wrote:  It's not smokers that a hazard but the smoke. If smoking in a doorway makes the smoke enter the building then it's just as prohibited as if the smoker were inside the door.

It's not possible to open windows in some offices in work because smokers congregate outside.

Why should provision be made for smokers? There are far more deserving people around.

Good point, I do apologise. It is the smoke that I have the problem with, not smokers. I am not sure that smoking right outside the door letting smoke into the building is illegal though. So far as I am aware, it is only smoking inside that is illegal. Smoking under a window is inconsiderate though.

(04-02-2010 05:24 PM)Xtro Wrote:  Smoking is a legal drug addiction, but I fully support the smoking ban. The proposals seem reasonable to me. I don't see why pubs should be exempt. Prior to the ban, I have worked in offices with smoking rooms and they didn't really work - the smell of smoke permeated the entire floor as the door to the smoking room was constantly being opened and closed (or left open). Sealed smoking rooms can work if sensibly positioned within an office, but they are expensive to install and maintain and use a lot of energy (thereby adding to CO2 emissions). Why should employers be expected to spend money supporting their employees' drug addiction (albeit a legal one)? I don't think anyone would think it OK to provide a drinking room for alcohol (also legal) at work.

My understanding is that the main driver behind the smoking ban was a health and safety issue for employees in their workplace, rather than the general public. The ban in pubs is to protect bar staff rather than the customers. It was studies which showed the damage that could be caused by passive smoking that led to the demise of smoking in the workplace. An employer has a duty of care not to expose their employees to harmful chemicals and substances - a non smoker could sue if they were exposed to second hand smoke in the workplace and developed a smoking related disease such as lung cancer. Just think of all the miners that developed lung problems from inhaling coal dust and others that suffered terribly from asbestos and all the compensation payments that eventually ensued.

Compensation for asbestos, don't get me started. Hubby has calcified pleural plaques (medical name for what you get when you breath in asbestos). Compensation is almost impossible. The government just closed all general claims, just set a date and said no claim after that date will be entertained which was an easy get-out as it takes around 40 years to develop. I expect the government will do something similar to protect itself from claims from smokers. As for suing an employer, unless you work for one employer from school to retirement, it is very hard as you have to prove which one exposed you to the danger and for most people it is constant exposure over a lifetime while working for a number of different employers who can all wriggle out of it by blaming each other.

Back to smoking rooms, I agree that poorly constructed rooms could cause a problem. However, you make it sound like only smokers would benefit. As a non-smoker, I would benefit more than a smoker as it would effectively remove smokers from doorways so I don't have to breath in smoke to get into/out of a building. All previous and proposed legislation seems to pit the smokers v non-smokers instead of finding a comfortable and safe solution to suit all. If alternative provision was more attractive than doorways, that would work far better and possibly cost less in the long run than policing a ban.

[Moorial]

Yes smoking is a deadly habit and unpleasant for those around you (I speak as a tolerant ex-smoker) but what about all the car fumes we breathe in on a daily basis? I did have the nauseating experience of walking my 6 year old son through a cannabis smoke filled underpass the other day.